Leslie Bergh and his two brothers, Milton and Raymond, formed a partnership to help build a fancy saloon and dance hall in Evanston, Wyoming. Later, Leslie met with his friend and drinking buddy, John Mills, and tricked Mills into investing in the saloon. Leslie did not tell Mills that no one else was investing cash or that the entire enterprise was already bankrupt. Mills mortgaged his home, invested $150,000 in the saloon—and lost every penny of it. Mills sued all three partners for fraud. Milton and Raymond defended on the ground that they did not commit the fraud, only Leslie did. The defendants lost. Was that fair? By holding them liable, what general idea did the court rely on? What Anglo-Saxon legal custom did the ruling resemble?
Answer to relevant QuestionsUnder British law, a police officer must now say the following to a suspect placed under arrest: “You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defense, the court may ...Van is brought to the police station for questioning about a shooting at a mall. The police read him his Miranda rights. For the rest of the three hour interrogation, he remains silent except for a few one word responses. ...What are the advantages and disadvantages of hiring a lawyer to draft or review a contract? 1. Gregg Young, the CEO of BJY Inc., insisted on calling Mamdouh El-Hakem “Manny” or “Hank” even when El-Hakem asked him not to. El-Hakem was of Arab heritage. Young argued that a “Western” name would increase ...The Lillie Rubin boutique in Phoenix would hire only women to work in sales because fittings and alterations took place in the dressing room or immediately outside. The customers were buying expensive clothes and demanded a ...
Post your question